Re: Why Scruffy Brit Socialists Hate Capitalism

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RCMWf.6583$NN4.3532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"hippo" <hippo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:122lqsuphobgpeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message

In soc.history.medieval hippo wrote:

"D. Patterson" wrote in message

hippo wrote:

Paul is a knee jerk and, astounding as it is, actually believes that
crap. That doesn't make him evil or a traitor or any of the other
things
you routinely call him. -the Troll


Now, Hippo, please don't get carried away with the make nice
diplomacy.
Imagine what would happen if and when a Muslim terrorist detonates a
terrorist bomb at the United Nations, kills and injures a thousand
people
in the explosion, flees pursuit by law enforcement, finds Paul Gans
because of his past sympathetic posts in these forums, pleads his
innocence to Paul Gans, and asks for help from Paul Gans in reaching
asylum at a consulate or embassy while bemoaning his fate at Gitmo
should
he be caught. In your opinion based upon Gans' past comments, would
Paul
Gans betray the Muslim to law enforcement for possible detention at
Gitmo,
or would Paul Gans aid the suspect to escape law enforcement by
taking
the
suspect to asylum in a consulate or embassy?

He'd turn the *** over in a flash to the NYPD or FBI if he
suspected
the
guy to have done the bombing. Paul's a patriot in his own NE Liberal
way.
His dislike for Bush, and everything that smacks of Conservatism, is a
Pavlovian response common to his background and generation. I have a
brother-in-Law just the same who drives me nuts with his repeated
failures
in logic and convenient memory lapses.

It is to laugh. Does Patterson really think that it is legal
or constitutional to pick up a criminal from the streets of
New York and cart him off to Gitmo?

If so he's got serious problems.

Of course I'd turn the *** over. It might even happen,
though I'd hope not, after I'd taken a few extra-legal actions
of my own on him. Don't forget, of the three of us I'm the one
who watched the World Trade Center burn with my own eyes.

I haven't forgotten.

Here's an example, for decades he had been telling the story of his
father's
imprisonment by the British in Palestine without being able to say why
he
was imprisoned. In Israel I asked a relative who told me, with him
present
in the room, that the father had merely been detained by the Brits
pending
deportation back to Poland for Communist agitation.

Not a year later my brother-in-law began denying the conversation ever
took
place and telling the same old story again. He *needs* to believe that
story
for his belief system (the British were repressive/bad, Jews and
Communists
good). I've given up arguing with him. He is simply incapable of
getting
past his cultural conditioning. Every time I post to Paul it is with
that
image in my mind. When I say he isn't lying, I don't think he is,
because
he
really believes that crap even when it is clearly contradictory, even
ridiculous, to any rational, objective mind. -the Troll

I can't speak for your brother-in-law, nor would I particularly
want to. But convenient lapses in memory and lack of logic
are not peculiar to him.

Would you like me to google up my posts on the then impending
war with Iraq and read what I said those many years ago?

Tiger by the tail.

I remember them. You dredged up every anti-war argument possible and
repeated them over and over again. The problem is it wasn't because of
the
war or Iraq and I could see right through it. You even poo-pooed the idea
Lebanon might be freed or the Palestinians might be forced by poverty and
lack of a strong ally into a more reasonable stance from that
appertaining
at the time (height of intifada). You were wrong about both. In the end
it
was always about Bush. The things you said about him were some of the
most
outrageous lies I could imagine and parroted day-to-day the latest load
of
merde printed by the Times or ranted by Ted Kennedy on the evening news.
You
were as predictable as hot pavement on a sunny day. To me you were then,
and
are now, just another propagandist, with the single caveat I really
believe
you think you are telling the truth. You forget that old Ted is not to be
relied on for truth and the Times has been caught out having to print
retractions how many times recently?

The facts are Saddam and his cronies are out of power, dead, or on trial.
His millions have been recovered and turned over to the new government or
spent by his terrorists. We have both physical and documentary proof of
French and Russian duplicity, showing their true reasons for blocking us
in
the UN and opposing the war, and the fact they were both breaking the
very
UN sanctions they were, as guarantors and Security Council members,
supposed
to be protecting (just as I said they were). Lebanon is now free and
Israel
is having far less trouble with the Palestinians than before the war (and
other Arab countries for that matter). Nothing is as simple as political
propaganda wants to paint it. -the Troll


So why was I (and 80% of Brits) saying much the same thing at the same
time?
You'll have to dream up a whole new load of propaganda to answer that.
And be careful not to insult your only staunch ally! :-))


Waaaaay too late for that, it's his raison d'etre. You've only got to look
at the title of this thread for starters!


.

Quantcast